Richard Mourdock, a Republican candidate for Senate in Indiana, recently made the following statement during a debate for the Senate: “Even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.” Here is my reply:

Richard Mourdock

A Letter to Richard Mourdock

Seriously, Mr. Mourdock, when a woman gets pregnant from rape, “God intended that to happen”? What exactly did God intend to happen, the rape, the pregnancy? Let’s remember that without the rape there would be no pregnancy.

So, let’s talk about RAPE. And I mean, let’s REALLY talk about RAPE.

Rape is typically defined as when one person forcibly engages in sexual intercourse (sexual intercourse includes both vaginal and anal penetration either with a body part or an object) with another person against that person’s will.

What might that look like? Well, it can look like someone taking a stick or other object and putting it inside a woman’s vagina or a person’s anus. It can mean placing one’s finger or tongue inside the woman’s vagina or a person’s anus. It can also mean placing one’s penis inside a woman’s vagina or a woman or man’s anus.

Let’s keep in mind that in any and all of these instances, if it is rape, it means that the person having the object or body part inserted into him or her did NOT want that to happen. In fact, they explicitly said NO.

I’m kind of curious, Mr. Mourdock, is that what God intended? For people to have their bodies violated by another person? Because if that is what God intended, I want NO part of your God. And, I want to understand how you could allege to possibly know what God intended?

Mr. Mourdock, please close your eyes and allow yourself to feel and imagine the following:

You are walking home one night; it is a beautiful warm, balmy evening. You love the feel of the light breeze on your body. The fresh air is lovely to breathe in. You are thinking of how happy you are, how much you love your wife and children and how wonderful your life really is. You do not have a care in the world. Then suddenly out of nowhere, you are jumped from behind and taken down on the sidewalk. You hit the ground rather hard and your head hurts. You are terrified for your life. You imagine the person is going to take your wallet, watch and any other valuables you have on your person when suddenly he undoes your pants and pulls them down to your ankles. You are confused and horrified – what is he going to do. This can’t be happening. You scream and yet there is no one around. And the next thing you know, you are being raped.

Mr. Mourdock, I’m just wondering, at what point during that interaction are you thinking, “this is what God intended.” And please don’t tell me God did not intend this rape, only rapes that result in pregnancy, because without the rape, there is no pregnancy. You do not get to choose while being raped whether God intended it or not. The pregnancy is not an act of God anymore than the rape is.

I do not believe, Mr. Mourdock, that God intends for horrible things to happen, for people to suffer, and out of that suffering for a child to be born. God (regardless of what God you believe in) does not intend for people to suffer.

There is another God – the one who created a world filled with riches, beauty, awe, wonder and abundance. A world where we can all have our basic needs met without any harm to any being or the planet itself. One of my basic needs as a woman, and dare I suggest, one of your basic needs as well Mr. Mourdock, is for every person to be safe and secure in his or her own body. You seem to have no problem valuing this need for a fetus, can you please help me understand how come you do not value this need for my life?

When you say that “Even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen”, what I hear is that you do not value or care about women’s lives, safety and well-being. Is that true or are you just playing a political game? If you do not value women, then you do not deserve to go to Washington, D.C. to represent women. And if this is simply a political game you are playing to win, then shame on you. This is not a funny game. This is a matter of life and death.

I am not angry Mr. Mourdock. I am horrified and heartbroken that your thoughts and positions could be so deeply removed from the actual lived experiences of rape victims. I want politicians who are willing to listen to the needs of their constituents, who have compassion, and who care about the well-being of all beings – including living and breathing women. And what this compassion and care would look like to me Mr. Mourdock is not presuming to know what God intended for someone else or how someone else should act in such a circumstance. I want politicians who place the most personal decisions in a woman’s life in the hands of that very woman herself. A politician who trusts that each individual, and only each individual, knows what is best for her and what she needs to heal and move forward after such a traumatic event. A politician who trusts that each individual knows what her God intends for her life rather than presume that he knows better.

In your words, I do not hear one ounce of care or compassion. Mr. Mourdock I do not trust you to make decisions that are grounded in care and compassion for women. Until you can show that you actually care about women, you do not deserve to represent them in the United States Senate.

Pursuing the same logic, why stop with just rape? By extension of Mourdock’s reasoning, murders, robberies, fraud, and all great & small criminal offenses could be viewed as the will of God, and therefore, acceptable, not punishable, nor the victims compensated in any way. No need for laws, courts, prisons. Justice becomes a meaningless word, as there’s no “justice” to seek. The founding fathers were wiser than they knew by being silent on the issue of abortion. Nevertheless, it remains a fact that abortion at any stage of pregnancy is nearly 100% of the time the ending of a human life for the convenience of someone. Exception being endangerment of the life of the mother, when to do nothing will result in the death of both mother and fetus. I dislike euphemisms, and believe it’s important to face that basic fact (after all, any pregnancy, no matter how early will eventuate in a full term human baby in about 9 months unless interfered with by act of God or man). Its humanity doesn’t depend on the will of the mother (even a brain dead mother will deliver a normal full term infant as long as she has ventilation, nutrition, and hydration). Well, I won’t belabor that line of reasoning.

I imagine that when people say, “life begins at conception” they have in mind an abstract idea that this is the moment that “God” infuses the mysterious essence of “life” into a newly created zygote. This is a construct based in a dualistic perception of existence. There was “life” in the sperm and egg, encoded in the DNA, before the fertilization. Afterward, a new life form DNA combination emerges. This is one point in a continuum of existence. At what point does this life-form become fully human? When an external observer says so? When technology can detect it? When the life-form becomes self-aware? What about other non-human life? Most of us don’t have a problem ending that kind of life. Nor do many humans seem to have any moral conflict ending the life of other humans they deem to be unworthy of life. You could also apply this “reasoned” moral calculus of denying life-sustaining support for unworthy others. In closely observing nature, one can see that there are no clear demarcations between events. This is particularly evident at the quantum level. It is our human consciousness alone that makes a distinction and it’s often an arbitrary one. That doesn’t make it a “fact”.

Dear flyover country,
“I dislike euphemisms, and believe it’s important to face that basic fact (after all, any pregnancy, no matter how early will eventuate in a full term human baby in about 9 months unless interfered with by act of God or man).”

So, what about “high risk” pregnancies, requiring extensive medical intervention to save the life of the fetus? Should a raped woman be required to pay the exorbitant medical costs for these procedures? Since Romney/Ryan want to dismantle Medicare/Medicaid, I suppose their answer would be yes. And what if she cannot afford them? If she miscarries, should she then be tried for manslaughter, because “something” could have been done to save the baby?

I speak from experience. I lost my only hope to have a child, a much wanted baby girl. I am Kell-negative. What that means is that bringing a pregnancy to term would involve sticking a needle through my abdomen, piercing the baby’s heart and giving a full blood transfusion — and this would have to happen *at least* three times during pregnancy. Unfortunately, I lost my baby at 5 months.

You have probably seen those photos of “aborted” babies in chunks and pieces. Those “abortions” are what a miscarriage looks like. My daughter came out of me in chunks and pieces. I begged the doctors to do a D & C so that I could have a whole infant to bury. They said there was too high a risk of a septic abortion and that it was best to let nature take its course.

I essentially gave birth over 72 hours through a completely closed cervix to a dead baby ripped into pieces. What I believe to be my baby’s head (there was so much blood and tissue) came out over the toilet and while I was reaching for her, a nurse flushed the toilet.

My bleeding was so severe that it required three trips to the ER, once in an ambulance. And then I had to face the reality of asking, did I cause this by trying to save my daughter’s life?

Sir or Ma’am, there ARE some pregnancies that are so high-risk to BOTH mother and baby that high-tech medical procedures endanger both. Making those kind of choices is heart-rending. I have since chosen celibacy and dissolved my relationship with the baby’s father, who was likewise, heartbroken.

By trying to take a high-risk pregnancy to term, was I committing child abuse, essentially? The blood factor came from a botched blood transfusion that I received as a result of surgery some 17 years earlier. It was not discovered until after the first trimester.

In my case, perhaps an early abortion, with a baby to bury, would have been a better option. I do not know what my daughter suffered during her death in my womb. But I will remember her shattered little body, her little hand, until the day I die. And I pray that she forgives me, and that I will meet her in Paradise.

Thank you for your letter. The point that Mourdock is missing is that God never intended for us to suffer, but he gave us a gift and that is the gift of “free will.” He wants us to use our free will without causing harm to others and bringing suffering to them. His will is that we love each other as fellow human beings, that we are kind and compassionate, caring and forgiving, accepting and non-judgmental. He wants us to be slow to anger so that we don’t lash out. That we be long-suffering as we think through the consequences of our anger toward another so that we can make a righteous decision–one that won’t bring on suffering to another. It’s about choosing wisely when we exercise our free will. It’s not God’s will that men rape women; it’s man’s will that does the raping and never is it God’s will that women are to be raped and become pregnant! The exercise of free will have consequences, responsibilities and accountability. Ever since so many candidates and men in congress already have started this so-called debate about rape, I have been wondering that since they find it so easy to not to be offended by rape and see it as something that’s less than human that a man does to a woman, as though men have a right to rape women. My question to these candidates and congressmen is, how many of you have secret pasts? How many of you have actually raped a woman but don’t see it as rape but that these women were wanting you and you only gave them what they wanted? How many of you believe that you are so special and can do and get away with anything you want? How sad that the thinking of these men has become so twisted as evidenced by their public statements without any shame to the contrary of women’s suffering — women that have been raped and may have become pregnant — that you can excuse it away with this kind of twisted thinking. How sad for all us!

I’m not against making choices, but choice carries a burden, like it or not. Re: high risk pregnancies? Nothing I have said or believe would argue against doing everything possible to guide a high risk pregnancy to a successful childbirth. Sometimes that’s not possible, and a a choice must be made to save the mother vs. allowing both to die (when fetal salvage is not possible). Even doing nothing is a choice, so there’s no escape from the burden of choice. As to elective abortion, I’m rather attracted to the Islamic view that the “soul” doesn’t enter the unborn till the “quickening” (the time the mother can feel movement of the fetus). Of course that’s a grossly obvious marker of life, since biological life of the embryo/fetus starts at the moment of conception, but requires successful implantation for it to proceed beyond that. Nevertheless, using the “quickening” as a temporal marker, elective abortion before that time could be more acceptable than afterwards.
We’ve created such a tough dilemma for ourselves, the victims of our own successes: better sanitation, technology, food supplies, that overpopulation looms as a genuine planetary problem. Our successes have imposed choices that in the past were mostly not practical possibilities. I end up being reduced to finding some comfort in the ancient saying: “Life is short, the art long, opportunity fleeting, experience treacherous, and judgment difficult”. Can’t remember who said that. Ah, the human condition.

Thank you, Andrea, for the words that I’m quoting from you here and I feel, are well worth having repeated many times in many venues:

“Ever since so many candidates and men in congress already have started this so-called debate about rape, I have been wondering that since they find it so easy to not to be offended by rape and see it as something that’s less than human that a man does to a woman, as though men have a right to rape women. My question to these candidates and congressmen is, how many of you have secret pasts? How many of you have actually raped a woman but don’t see it as rape but that these women were wanting you and you only gave them what they wanted? How many of you believe that you are so special and can do and get away with anything you want? How sad that the thinking of these men has become so twisted as evidenced by their public statements without any shame to the contrary of women’s suffering – women that have been raped and may have become pregnant – that you can excuse it away with this kind of twisted thinking. How sad for all us!”

I also believe that it takes courage to write your words, since secrecy and denial are some of the most potent weapons that rapists use to counter their victims’ statements, rights, and needs. What so many politicians, public figures and even irresponsible clergy and other power-holders find so easy to talk about with shameful insensitivity and disregard toward rape victims, especially women, needs to be confronted with such as Andrea’s statements more often. Our annals are full of incidents of rapists remaining free and undetected, thanks to the kind of intimidation and fear that is too often and consistently dumped on rape victims, especially women, blaming women or even young girls of responsibility for the rapists’ offenses.

The struggle will probably go on as long as men rule this culture, and as long as people lack the respect for others’ (and often their own) self-determination rights and rights over their own bodies and what is done with them.

As far as the debate over ‘what the will of God is concerning rape victims and pregnancies’ ——– it worries and offends me, since anyone can declare that they know what it is that God wants……especially those who see themselves as adherents to one religion or another. Even more so, religious adherents who are leaders, such as clergy, teachers and devotees or zealots.

Our world is filled with many and contradictory views (usually quite heatedly presented) of what the will of God actually is at any specific incident or even generally. These so tragically culminate in bloody and long-lasting wars among adherents of opposing views and opposing religions, each one claiming IT is the one ‘true religion’ and the only one representing ‘Good’, ‘Right’, and meant to ‘save the world’ by having (forcing?) all mankind accept their specific system as the ‘Truth’.

I say this, wondering where did the basic tenets of these many religions, human kindness and compassion, justice and fairness, disappear or get stuffed away? What about respect for those who are not adherents of YOUR religious beleifs, or ANY religious beliefs? Are their rights as possible victims given say, respected, or even given any consideration before religiious pontification over God’s will?

Mourdock’s comment reminded me of a cult led by a man named Cornelius during the wreck of the ship Batavia off Western Australia in 1639. The sect believed that anything people did must be ok with an all powerful God, so they went ahead and killed and raped people after the shipwreck. When a rescue mission arrived they put a canvas collar around these murderers’ necks and poured water in so they would have to drink or drown. Eventually they swallow so much water they die or confess. So does Mourdock belong to this cult? If so, maybe God would like him to undergo a water torture? Is all the bad stuff people do ok with God? Not a popular version of theology Mr. Mourdock. Many religious people believe that hell awaits people like rapists and that God does not intend for us to sin, but that sin represents the misuse of free will. This doesn’t make much sense either (free will is a red herring a philosopher told me–we all act partly based on what we know and our environment), but that is a better representation of a Christian position if that is what he thinks he is than that sinners get a free pass. I hope you get this essay and comments to Mr. Mourdock for him to reflect on and perhaps think of repenting his mistakes, lest he might burn in hell eternally for his sins.